Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the DeGette-Castle stem cell research bill. Our Nation's top scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to unlock the doors to treatments and cures to numerous diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. Tens of millions of Americans and their families stand to benefit from this life-saving research.

Current policy allows Federal funds to be used for research only on those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. However, few of the stem cell lines authorized by President Bush are now useful for research. According to the National Institutes of Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for Federal funding in the President's executive order of August 2001, only about 22 lines are now still available for researchers; and, many of these 22 ``available'' stem cell lines are contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.

H.R. 3 authorizes government support of research involving embryonic stem cells that

meet certain criteria, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from an embryo. The bill creates an ethical framework for this research. It prohibits funding for research unless the cell lines were derived from excess embryos that were created for reproductive purposes and would otherwise be discarded. It also requires voluntary informed consent from the couples donating the excess embryos and prohibits any financial inducements.

H.R. 3 represents real hope to the tens of millions Americans suffering from devastating illnesses, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, and her partner from California for the great work that they have done here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I call your attention in this discussion tonight to what happened on Page 1 of the New York Times. And I read this to you for your consideration:

``Inviting a Battle on Capitol Hill. In making the effort to step up the American military presence in Iraq, President Bush invites an epic clash with the Democrats who run Capitol Hill, whose leader promised to force a vote on his plan. While Congress cannot force a change in the White House plan, Mr. Bush's initiative shows that he is ignoring the results of the November elections, rejecting the central thrust of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and flouting some of the advice of his own generals.

``The move is in essence a calculated gamble that no matter how much hue and cry his new strategy may provoke, in the end the American people will give Mr. Bush more time to turn around the war in Iraq.''

Well, ladies and gentlemen, my suggestion is that, after last night's performance, he is not going to be given more time by the American people and that, from a popularity rating at an all time low of 26, my prediction is that he will have fallen even lower as a result of last night's performance.

So I think that this is quickly turning into the President's war. There are those on all sides around him, including within the Republican Party, Members that will not go along any further. We have run out of steam. We have run out of illogic. We have looked through the exaggerations. So I conclude my remarks by just letting you hear about the editorial in the New York Times:

``We have argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause.'' This is the editorial. ``We have called for an effort to secure Baghdad, but as part of the sort of comprehensive political solution utterly lacking in Mr. Bush's speech. This war has reached the point that merely prolonging it could make a bad ending even worse. Without a real plan to bring it to a close, there is no point in talking about jobs programs and military offenses. There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.'' This is the media talking now.

It is time that the Executive branch recognize that the majority of the American people, most of the Congress, the media itself are all telling him that President Bush's private war is not going to go anywhere, and to deliberately refuse to accept the decision and determination of the American people on November 7 means that he is now stepping beyond the democratic process.

Madam leader, Ms. Waters, I thank you so much for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and fellow Michigander, President Gerald R. Ford. I had the privilege of serving alongside then Congressman Ford in the United States House of Representatives for nearly a decade, and was able to observe firsthand the character and integrity of this ``congressman's congressman.'' Congressman Ford's exemplary service was confirmed by the support of the people of Grand Rapids, Michigan, whose love for him endures to this day. As minority leader of this body, President Ford demonstrated the collegiality and uprightness he would draw upon to lead our Nation through a dark time in our history.

I disagreed with some of President Ford's decisions. Along with most of the American public at that time, I disapproved of the way he pardoned his predecessor before trial proceedings had been initiated. I also disagreed with many of his policy positions. However, time has shown that the man some have called the ``accidental president'' was the right person to take the highest office in the land at a critical time for our Nation.

Gerald Ford's honor and integrity were the qualities we needed to restore trust and openness to a damaged Presidency. His humble and steady leadership brought our democracy back from the brink of a constitutional crisis. The citizens of the state of Michigan and of our great Nation will not soon forget the important contributions of this man of integrity and honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. After the longest period since the enactment of this law without an increase--over 9 years--America's poorest working families must get the raise they need and deserve. During this period in which Congress has failed to act to raise the wage of America's poorest workers, CEO and top executive pay has soared: the average annual compensation for a CEO at a Standard & Poor's 500 company rose from $3.7 to $9.1 million. Meanwhile, 28 States have seen the light and raised their State minimum wage to a level higher than the current Federal minimum wage of $5.15.

A full-time minimum wage worker in 2006 earns only $10,712 before taxes--nearly $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three. This situation is unacceptable and immoral, as the wealth of our Nation, the richest in the world, continues to be built on the backs of the working poor. Working families in America are struggling to meet the rising costs of health care, gas, and housing, and $5.15 an hour is simply not enough.

It's time for Congress to stop turning a blind eye to the plight of those workers making minimum wage and to address their needs. That is why I supported increasing the minimum wage in the 109th Congress, and that is why I am an original co-sponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act in this the 110th Congress.

H.R. 2 will increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour in three steps over 2 years. Sixty days after enactment of this legislation, the wage would rise from the current $5.15 per hour to $5.85 per hour. One year later, it would rise to $6.55. And a year after that, it would finally rise to $7.25 per hour.

The minimum wage needs to be raised not just for the goods and services it enables a person to buy but for the self-esteem and self- worth if affords. Wages must be adequate for workers to provide for themselves and their families with dignity.

Madam Speaker, today I come before this body to reintroduce the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African- Americans Act. I have advanced the Commission bill for over 15 years to direct attention to a historical wrong that warrants substantial consideration and discussion. Since introduction in 1989, I have never intended to spark controversy or promote division. Rather, I have worked to further a national dialogue on the plight of African Americans in the context of slavery, Jim Crow, and other legally sanctioned discrimination.

As a result, our dialogue has become more substantive and afforded us invaluable knowledge over the years. This Congress I intend to continue such discourse. I will also work to ensure that more people understand the benefit and the promise of a Commission. Unfortunately, there are too many that do not understand its purpose. This means that we must dispel the myths and correct the mistruths surrounding the Commission bill.

Each Congress, the conversations and efforts surrounding the Commission bill become more mature and sophisticated. Today we have a better understanding of slavery and its implications than we did 16 years ago. Since

1989, over forty states and cities have passed legislation in support of the Commission bill. In 2002, lawsuits were filed against U.S. corporations for their role in perpetuating slavery. The following year, in 2003, Brown University created the Committee on Slavery and Justice to assess the University's role in slavery and determine a response. And in 2004, a federal appeals court ruled that statute of limitations prevented redress in the case of the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot, but opened the door for legislative recourse.

Most recently, on December 13, 2006, a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. corporations can be found guilty of consumer fraud for failing to disclose their roles in slavery. Just a few weeks earlier, on November 27th, Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned the African slave trade and Britain's participation. As Brown University prepares to act on Committee recommendations in February, and on the eve of the 200th anniversary of Britain's prohibition of slavery in March, productive discussions on both the national and global levels seem promised.

However, as this dialogue continues to grow, one entity is noticeably absent--the federal government. The Commission would ensure proper participation in this conversation, in addition to taking us giant steps towards closure on this matter. The truth is that the institution of slavery will continue to tarnish the American national story until we confront this part of our history. While a Commission will not erase the past, it can bring us closer to racial reconciliation and advancement.

A Commission would not only examine the institution of slavery, but the legacy of slavery that weighs heavily on this country. Just last Congress, a bipartisan collective reauthorized the Voting Rights Act because racial inequities and injustices are a reality. This reality is the result of the social, economic, and political disenfranchisement African Americans have endured throughout our experience in this country. For a majority of this nation's history, this disenfranchisement was mandated by law. Disparities in education, housing, healthcare and other critical aspects of society have resulted.

After examining the issues, the Commission would recommend appropriate remedies to Congress. There is this common misperception that ``remedies'' means monetary compensation. Let me be clear, the Commission bill does not mandate financial payments of any kind. Recommendations would be at the sole discretion of the Commission. It is unfair to dismiss the idea of a Commission based on a fear that monetary reparations will be warranted. We need to understand that a reparations discussion goes beyond money.

We must also recognize that understanding slavery and its modern day implications is in the best interest of our society. This nation should serve as an example for corporations, universities, and other countries. In the 110th Congress, I look forward to open and constructive discourse about the Commission bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mourn the passing and commemorate the life of Dearborn, Michigan's Mayor Michael Guido. Mayor Guido, 52, passed away Tuesday night at his home surrounded by his family.

The son of Italian immigrants, Michael Guido got his start in politics in 1978 when he was elected as the youngest Councilman in Dearborn history. Eight years later, in 1986, Councilman Guido followed up this historic first by being the youngest person in Dearborn history to be elected mayor--a capacity in which he served until his last days.

Despite being diagnosed with cancer in February 2006, Mayor Guido remained on the job every day, continuing to work long hours at City Hall and around town, attending public events throughout his outpatient treatment. He even found the strength to serve as 64th President of the United States Conference of Mayors, proving himself many times over as the leader of this bipartisan force for our nation's mayors.

Mayor Guido initiated outstanding improvements to City services, especially in public safety areas, directed the construction or renovation of notable city facilities, and oversaw the completion of dramatic private developments that improved the city's tax base and long term viability.

He was serious about his commitment to exceptional public service. He set high standards, and initiated many programs that were innovative upon their implementation. Among those are curbside recycling and composting, loose leaf collection, and a myriad of public safety initiatives--advanced life support, an emergency warning system, and an automated notification system. As a believer in technology to provide efficient public service, he knew that there is no replacement for personal contact and required employees to not just follow-up with residents, but to solve their problems.

During his tenure as Mayor, he changed the facade of Dearborn by initiating development projects that revived the critical downtown areas, including West Village and West Village Commons in the west end, and Georgetown Commons in the east end. His drive to keep Dearborn attractive for families and young professionals in the face of competition from newer communities culminated in the construction of the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center in 2001.

Other significant projects included the expansion of the Dearborn Ice Skating Center, the construction of a new Police Headquarters, the expansion of the Robert Herndon Dearborn Hills Golf Course, the redesign of Ford Woods Park, improvements to Camp Dearborn and neighborhood pools and parks, and expansion of Esper Branch Library.

While he will be remembered for his accomplishments, he will also be remembered for his humor and ability to relate to people. As an accomplished speaker, he adeptly incorporated jokes into formal presentations, and his conversation was pointed yet entertaining with quips and impersonations.

Mayor Guido's impact upon the City of Dearborn and will continue to be recognized within his community and nationally. During an interview years ago, he said he wanted his epitaph to be ``He loved the people of Dearborn, and they loved him . . .'' We will all miss his leadership and will remember his legacy in the City of Dearborn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 3821, which makes professional visas available for certain athletes and entertainers who are needed for work and competition in the United States professional athletic industries.

Historically, minor league athletes enter our country as part of the H-2B seasonal worker program. These visas are capped at 66,000 per year, and they often run out well before the year is out.

So we, through this legislation, will allow sport franchises and companies to bring minor league baseball players, hockey players and ice skating performers into the country to perform or compete when they are needed, without being barred by the visa cap. It shifts these talented people from the H visa category to the P visa category, the same one currently used by highly skilled professional athletes.

With this change, the United States will no longer lose these talented athletes to other nations because visas are not available at the right time.

This is a necessary piece of legislation to fix our visa categories, and I am glad that we are able to get the support of both Chambers in a bipartisan fashion to pass this at the very end of the 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the Respect for the Funerals of Fallen Heroes Act, a bill that would promote respect for the funerals of fallen heroes by prohibiting disruptive activities at funerals of deceased members of the Armed Forces.

This bill would build on the respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act by providing similar protection for the funerals of all deceased members or former members of the Armed Services, not only at Federal cemeteries but also at private cemeteries, funeral homes, and houses of worship. I think that we have found that this bill is consistent with constitutional considerations, and I urge that the House support this suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Oregon as much time as he may consume.

I wanted to thank the gentleman for yielding, and recall that he was a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee himself for a considerable period of time. We will keep in mind the conversations that we have had here tonight in the closing hours.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Of course we support this legislation, because the bill merely amends the extent to which small nonprofits can keep the profits of inventions they develop in conjunction with the Federal Government.

Under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the Federal Government will provide funds to nonprofits, including universities, for the purpose of conducting important research. Because the government is not equipped to do so, the nonprofits are allowed to patent any discoveries, sell and license the inventions, and keep a portion of the profits. Currently, the nonprofit can keep an amount of the profits up to 5 percent of its annual budget; the balance of the profits must be returned to the taxpayers.

Because of the unique situation of small universities, the bill would permit them to retain a higher percentage of the profits. While small universities may have small budgets, their research and development costs might not be small and can have a significant impact upon their budgets themselves. This legislation would permit small entities, those with a budget of less than $40 million, could retain a higher portion of the profits, up to 15 percent of their budgets.

This is a simple, straightforward proposition, we have heard no objection to it, and I am pleased to urge that it be passed this evening

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the following letter from American University, Washington College of Law Professor Andrew F. Popper outlines the problems and concerns with this legislation.

American University,

Washington College of Law,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers,

Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mourn the passing and commemorate the life of Dearborn, Michigan's Mayor Michael Guido. Mayor Guido, 52, passed away last night at his home surrounded by his family.

The son of Italian immigrants, Michael Guido got his start in politics 1978 when he was elected as the youngest Councilman in Dearborn history. Eight years later, in 1986, Councilman Guido followed up this historic first by being the youngest person in Dearborn history to be elected mayor--a capacity in which he served until his last days.

Despite being diagnosed with cancer in February 2006, Mayor Guido remained on the job every day, continuing to work long hours at City Hall and around town, attending public events throughout his outpatient treatment. He even found the strength to serve as 64th President of the United States Conference of Mayors, proving himself many times over as the leader of this bipartisan force for our Nation's mayors.

Mayor Guido initiated outstanding improvements to City services, especially in public safety areas, directed the construction or renovation of notable city facilities, and oversaw the completion of dramatic private developments that improved the city's tax base and long term viability.

He was serious about his commitment to exceptional public service. He set high standards, and initiated many programs that were innovative upon their implementation. Among those are curbside recycling and composting, loose leaf collection, and a myriad of public safety initiatives--advanced life support, an emergency warning system, and an automated notification system. As a believer in technology to provide efficient public service, he knew that there is no replacement for personal contact and required employees to not just follow-up with residents, but to solve their problems.

During his tenure as Mayor, he changed the facade of Dearborn by initiating development projects that revived the critical downtown areas, including West Village and West Village Commons in the west end, and Georgetown Commons in the east end. His drive to keep Dearborn attractive for families and young professionals in the face of competition from newer communities culminated in the construction of the Ford Community & Performing Arts Center in 2001.

Other significant projects included the expansion of the Dearborn Ice Skating Center, the construction of a new Police Headquarters, the expansion of the Robert Herndon Dearborn Hills Golf Course, the redesign of Ford Woods Park, improvements to Camp Dearborn and neighborhood pools and parks, and expansion of Esper Branch Library.

While he will be remembered for his accomplishments, he will also be remembered for his humor and ability to relate to people. As an accomplished speaker, he adeptly incorporated jokes into formal presentations, and his conversation was pointed yet entertaining with quips and impersonations.

Mayor Guido's impact upon the City of Dearborn will continue to be recognized within his community and nationally. During an interview years ago, he said he wanted his epitaph to be ``He loved the people of Dearborn, and they loved him . . .'' We will all miss his leadership and will remember his legacy in the City of Dearborn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I am today joined by a number of my colleagues in expressing strong opposition to this measure in the manner in which it comes before us today.

This proposal, introduced only 2 weeks ago, has conveniently made its way here to the House floor without the benefit of a single hearing, markup or any other consideration or discussion by our committee.

Now, one could understand the need to circumvent the safeguards embodied in the traditional legislative process if this measure proposed to solve some of the problems of the 46 million Americans who every day go without health insurance.

One could also understand the need to rush the bill through if it sought to improve our local schools, proposed to make college more affordable, or attempted to enhance the standard of living of roughly 38 million people in America who currently live in poverty.

Unfortunately, this bill fails to address any pressing public policy problems, but instead its sole aim is to influence the decisions of a local government located several thousand miles away in Paris, France.

As many may know, the details surrounding the conviction of Mumia Abu-Jamal for the murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner are filled with a great deal of controversy. Legal experts have questioned the numerous irregularities that occurred during the course of the trial, including the failure to conduct adequate ballistic tests on Abu- Jamal's gun and the clearly contradictory testimony given by at least two of the prosecution witnesses.

Yet and still, and regardless of one's personal feeling with respect to Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence, we should not be using the precious time we have to address the needs of the American people with a resolution such as this.

Let us agree to let the French Government focus on the needs of its people while we focus on the needs of everyday, hardworking people here in America.

We can start by providing better jobs, better schools, more affordable health care, not by passing this resolution.

I must note that since his imprisonment, Abu-Jamal has continued his political activism and has completed his bachelor of arts from Goddard College, has earned a master of arts from California State University, and from his cell has made commencement speeches to graduating classes in a number of colleges across the country. He was a guest speaker on the immortal techniques on the musical album. The organization, Access of Justice, interviewed him for their job. Vanity Fair wrote that a supporter of Mumia's, Phillip Block, visited him in prison and asked Jamal whether he regretted shooting a cop, to which Mumia allegedly answered yes. Block, who otherwise supported Mumia, stated he came forward after he grew concerned about the vilification of Officer Faulkner, and this story goes on.

I think this is not one of the great suspension matters which we should be bringing to the floor at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may need to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman, Ms. Schwartz, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation which would require Federal and State courts to recognize the validity of a document notarized in other States. It has been clearly and accurately described. It would operate to smooth out evidentiary rules which would treat notarized documents differently from public documents.

Under section 1738 of title 28, Federal and State courts must recognize the official acts of State legislatures and courts. With respect to notarized documents, however, courts must determine whether they are authentic. This can delay court proceedings and negate the entire purpose of notarization, which is to authenticate the identity of the person signing the document.

The measure before us would make it easier for notarized documents to be admitted into evidence and thus speed up court proceedings. We on this side are in total agreement of that. I urge support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to have reached a bipartisan agreement to extend the J-1 visa waiver program for another 2-year period. This visa waiver program is critically important to bringing essential medical services to residents of underserved rural and urban areas, including my own district in Detroit, Michigan. The J-1 program allows some foreign doctors who have completed their medical training in the United States to remain here to practice medicine for 2 years if they will serve patients in a region of the country that the Federal Government defines as medically underserved. These tend to be less affluent urban areas with high population densities and insufficient access to general practitioners and specialists as well as rural areas that are far from medical centers and may have trouble attracting enough doctors to meet the communities' needs. These communities are particularly desperate for physician services because of the growing national shortage of doctors our country is facing.

This past summer a Los Angeles Times article detailed the looming crisis in medical care in the United States as the demand for medical service explodes. The article noted industry fears that shortages may even become more severe over the next decade due to the flat medical school enrollments, aging baby boomers, and the high number of doctors heading for retirement.

While some communities enjoy a glut of physicians, one in five Americans, in fact, live in rural and urban areas with so few doctors that the Federal Government has classified these regions as ``medically underserved.'' It is these Americans that foreign doctors assist when they get a J-1 visa waiver to practice medicine in communities that don't have enough American doctors.

I believe we need to make improvements in this program so that it better meets the needs of the underserved. Right now some States who receive J-1 doctors through the ``Conrad-30 program'' do not lose their allotment of 30 waivers each year while other States find that 30 waivers are insufficient to meet the medical needs of their communities. In addition, some States may

not need 30 waivers, but other States have trouble recruiting all the doctors they need. The result is that some citizens are still unable to get essential medical care.

We need a plan that ensures that States having trouble recruiting enough doctors will be able to fill their allotment for J-1 doctors and ensure that States which fill their annual allotment of J-1 doctors can get more such doctors to meet their needs without impinging upon those allotted to any other State. In this way the needs of all States and, most importantly, all of the citizens in underserviced areas can be met until U.S. medical schools are able to increase the number of graduates to meet our domestic needs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate in the 110th Congress to improve, extend, and sustain this vital visa program in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson- Lee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who is the original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. And I am pleased to rise in support of the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donations Act of 2006.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a continuation of an effort we began in 1997 when Congress responded to cases holding that pre-petition tithes and other charitable contributions could be deemed to be fraudulent transfers, and that the trustee could recoup these tithes from the religious institutions receiving the donations.

We all agreed that this was a clearly perverse result, and to clarify the law we passed the measure, Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998.

Then a funny thing happened. This Congress forgot about the value of religious charity embodied in that legislation. Instead, forsaking the biblical injunction to forgive debts and deal generously with the poor, this Congress became a registered agent for the credit card industry.

How?

Well, it is because of the aggressive overreaching of the lending industry and a Congress willing to write into law any scrap of paper handed to it by large financial institutions that we have come to this point today. The decision in the Diagostino case relied solely on the text of the law Congress passed. It restricts a debtor in chapter 13, with current monthly income above the State median, to the narrow strictures of the means test which relies on what the IRS says a person needs to live on.

We debated the reliance on IRS guidelines to determine what a family needs to survive. We were all told not to worry, the IRS knows best and will provide all. Well, almost all.

It turns out that when you owe the IRS money, they don't want you making donations to your house of worship or to charity. And the IRS rule became a part of the Bankruptcy Code because Members of this House voted to give IRS bureaucrats that power.

We had managed to get a statutory allowance for tithing in the means test and in chapter 13, but the final language pushed through by the sponsors and the credit card industry did an end run around these provisions.

And that is how we got here. And I am glad that there is a will to fix it. This bill will allow chapter 13 debtors to tithe in their plans on the same basis as provided in the section 1325(b)(2)(A)(ii).

Keep in mind that while we are fixing the law for tithes and other charitable donations, basic problems in the law remain unchanged.

By wiping out the allowable expenses in chapter 13 for debtors with an income above the State median and replacing them with rigid IRS- based means tests, the new law still leaves families and small businesses at the tender mercies of the IRS. What else will we find was left out?

When the new law was being considered, Members were assured that the IRS guidelines would provide the right answer in all cases. And as we have discovered, that hasn't worked out as well as the credit card industry said it would.

This bill is supported by the United Way, the Red Cross, the National Council of Churches, Interfaith Alliance, the United Church of Christ, the National Baptist Churches USA, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church and others. I am pleased to urge all Members to support it.

But Members are fooling themselves if they think this is a discrete problem in a law that one proponent has described as perfect and that the sponsors told us was so well drafted that no amendments could even be considered.

The hubris has hurt real Americans and it will again.

Let's fix this mistake. It is the right thing to do, but we had better get used to doing it. The new Code is a disaster, the natural consequence of subcontracting work out of the Congress to lobbyists, which I am sure will be coming to an end very shortly.

I urge the passage of this legislation. I congratulate the chairman of the committee for bringing this matter to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.